In my observation, most people in the WaterNeuron community who are actively participating in governance conversations, including the dev team, are in agreement with you on this idea. I happen to be one of the only people who disagrees.
Triggering the entire voting power of both the 6mo and 8yr neurons based on the consensus reached on each proposal has a self limiting feature that I think is important to recognize. I don’t want a double digit percentage of voting power in the NNS to be created by people who are only interested in staking rewards, even if the vote is triggered by a consensus of credible and reliable WTN neuron owners.
I would like to see the vast majority of NNS voting power being cast by people who own their voting power and have long term skin in the game, which is the original design of the NNS and tokenomics. It’s good for people to be uncomfortable when the voting power triggered by any one neuron is too large. We need people to always challenge large neuron owners and hold them to a high standard. I think splitting the WaterNeuron voting power will take us in the wrong direction and lead to even more liquid staking.
I recognize that I will probably lose this argument since so many people are already aligned with the split voting power distribution idea. The same thing happened when it came to canister controlled neurons. I was adamantly against it for the longest time, but once it became apparent that DFINITY would implement it specifically so WaterNeuron could launch, the only logical thing to do was to start working on how to participate in a responsible way. At the end of the day, it will all work out. However, from my point of view right now, this would be another mistake for WaterNeuron to split the vote through brute force (split/merge) or through a new NNS method created by DFINITY. I hope the community give this more thought before it gets implemented.
This is how every single neuron in the NNS works. It’s not new or unique to WaterNeuron.
I should have just used the same terminology that @thyassa used. Most people seem aligned with the idea of having the WTN neuron vote proportionally to the WTN holders wishes. That is what I was trying to say.
It’s not a question of if, but rather when. It probably won’t happen on your time scale if you think it should be implemented now. WaterNeuron still triggers less than 1% TVP in the NNS, which is not enough to warrant such drastic changes.
If youll publicly state that WTN is a pyramid scheme designed to dilute non participants and make retail investors more poor than they already are, until eventually theyre paying YOU to vote with their money.
I wont complain about the decentralization of the daos votes.
